Talk:Coney Island in popular culture
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
MIB³
[edit]Men in Black 3 not added yet? Myotis (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Trivia cleanup
[edit]Cleaned up a badly inserted trivia edit[1] and then similar edits[2] since they seem to fall below Wikipedia content guidelines (see WP:TRIVIA). Something that simply mentions the topic falls under "lack(s) real importance" and also falls into WP:OR, "oh, I heard this word mentioned in a song, I'm gonna add it to Wikipedia..... source?---> ME!". If there is a source covering Coney Island in music that mentions these entries feel free add them back in with the source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with adding sources to the lines, but to eliminate the lines because you don't see them as being important or relevant trashes the whole point of the article. -------User:DanTD (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- A very good case can be made that this article is pointless (as far as Wikipedia is concerned). I really don't have to see items in this article as being important, the person adding the items has to prove that. Simple mentions of a subject in work "X" is considered pure trivia (and un-encyclopedic) because it is important to none of the subjects it connects, see also WP:IPCEXAMPLES. The cutoff I settled on is song track title/subject but it could be cut off at album title/subject. I would note even those are unreferenced but it is a jumping off point for article cleanup since someone else already noted the lack of reference problem. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- The history of the article on Coney Island itself proves this article is not only not pointless, but was an absolutely necessary split. -------User:DanTD (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- The Coney Island article seems very good to me but this forked "Coney Island in popular culture" is pointless in that it is going nowhere. A collection of disconnected items should be integrated into a referenced prose section (such as I did here). Shunting it off to it's own article forestalls any integration. As User:Work permit said it would have been better to delete the material outright. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- There was nothing pointless about it. The Coney Island, Brooklyn article was so huge that splitting this section of was a necessity. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- The Coney Island article seems very good to me but this forked "Coney Island in popular culture" is pointless in that it is going nowhere. A collection of disconnected items should be integrated into a referenced prose section (such as I did here). Shunting it off to it's own article forestalls any integration. As User:Work permit said it would have been better to delete the material outright. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- The history of the article on Coney Island itself proves this article is not only not pointless, but was an absolutely necessary split. -------User:DanTD (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- A very good case can be made that this article is pointless (as far as Wikipedia is concerned). I really don't have to see items in this article as being important, the person adding the items has to prove that. Simple mentions of a subject in work "X" is considered pure trivia (and un-encyclopedic) because it is important to none of the subjects it connects, see also WP:IPCEXAMPLES. The cutoff I settled on is song track title/subject but it could be cut off at album title/subject. I would note even those are unreferenced but it is a jumping off point for article cleanup since someone else already noted the lack of reference problem. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)